Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory

    PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

  • Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory

    PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

  • Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?

      I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.